I know that, lol. but IDGAF was Mikal's G+ interview series--for which I still haven't gotten an interview!--so I'm trying to see how that would tie into a truth box.

Oh, lol. Yeah, speaking of which I haven't gotten mine either.

We should live debate the FRAT Act on an IDGAF, lmfao.

Oh, oops.

FRT Act*

FRAT Act is something totally different, lmfao.

Haha. could've been worse.

Lol, but dude the bills are so deceptive....House Republicans, I swear...

FRAT Act = Federal Reserve Accountability and Transparency Act -- forces the Fed to model policy according to an objective function it releases to the public, such as the Taylor Ruler, and forced it to justify to Congress why it deviated from that rule

At 2/23/2015 6:44:20 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:You know.. the last one of these was the first forum I ever posted to.

You saw the truth box before anything else and still decided to join DDO?!

*Tips hat*

YupThe first thing YYW ever told me was "go away"

Ohhh, you meant his truth box? Okay, I actually forgot he had one. I was thinking of Mikal's (that YYW eventually took over, I think).

I posted a graphic depiction of child porn and was banned from that one. Yyw then took over

Yeah, I remember that--though we should note that you didn't screen that submission, which is why it was even posted. Obviously you would've veto'ed it, had you seen it, and responded with a giant middle finger to whomever sent it.

Or not... ya know, I've had beef with addition myself, so I guess IDGAF about addition either. So let me rant about this for a minute. Yes, you guessed it: it's addition. Before I say anything else, I'd like to state the following disclaimer for addition's benefit: Warning! This post may contain sarcasm. Okay, now that that's taken care of, let me posit the hypothesis that the best thing about addition is the way that it encourages us to defend peace, truth, justice, and equality. No, wait; addition doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that the concept of risk includes the relationship between the consequences and probability of an event. If the consequences of an event are extremely negative, such as the devastation resulting from addition inculcating rebarbative apothegms, then you want the probability of the event occurring to be vanishingly small, as close to zero as possible. Unfortunately, the likelihood of addition diminishing our will to live is so high that one can't help but conclude that when I say that its adherents merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. This is a common fallacy held by iconoclastic freaks of nature.

Addition claims that its functions will universally benefit all mankind. In reality, it will benefit only those irritating agelasts who inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress. As I like to say, you cannot link arms under a universalist banner when you can't find your own name on it. By that I mean that addition's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.

Addition can scare us by using big words like "saccharomucilaginous". This is patently absurd, as even a cursory examination of the facts will prove. In any event, addition's most steadfast claim is that everyone with a different set of beliefs from its is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, addition's fantasy is to bake us a cake of McCarthyism, filled with classism and topped with a layer of defeatism. It dreams of a world that grants it such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of larrikinism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that subjecting addition's nemeses to all sorts of terrifying autos-da-f" would bring unprecedented devastation and loss of life. No political, economic, or military objective could justify this outcome. But that doesn't stop addition from emptying the meaning of such concepts as "self," "justice," "freedom," and other profundities or from suppressing all evidence that it believes with sincere conviction that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing it and the dour knaves in its peuplade. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won't faze it; it's immune to any sort of reality check. That's why all of addition's musings are based on the premise that undiscoverable, unmeasurable, magical forces from another plane of existence have given it superhuman wisdom. The logical consequences of that are clear: Addition avouches that its new ruses are fundamentally different from its old ones and should not be equated with them. In my opinion, this is simply a matter of old wine in new bottles. Addition's ruses are still based on the same, feral sectarianism and are still used to obscure the fact that addition counts careless pedants as its friends. Unfortunately for it, these are hired friends, false friends, friends incapable of realizing for a moment that sometimes I think that addition is simply a willing pawn of those frowsy egotists who take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that I correctly predicted that addition would recover the dead past by annihilating the living present. Alas, I didn't think it'd do that so effectively"or so soon. As a parting thought, remember that it frustrates addition that it can't shut me up.

Tldr: this spam thread will eventually be deleted - and no I didn't cry, I guess it did make me nervous though.

Or not... ya know, I've had beef with addition myself, so I guess IDGAF about addition either. So let me rant about this for a minute. Yes, you guessed it: it's addition. Before I say anything else, I'd like to state the following disclaimer for addition's benefit: Warning! This post may contain sarcasm. Okay, now that that's taken care of, let me posit the hypothesis that the best thing about addition is the way that it encourages us to defend peace, truth, justice, and equality. No, wait; addition doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that the concept of risk includes the relationship between the consequences and probability of an event. If the consequences of an event are extremely negative, such as the devastation resulting from addition inculcating rebarbative apothegms, then you want the probability of the event occurring to be vanishingly small, as close to zero as possible. Unfortunately, the likelihood of addition diminishing our will to live is so high that one can't help but conclude that when I say that its adherents merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. This is a common fallacy held by iconoclastic freaks of nature.

Addition claims that its functions will universally benefit all mankind. In reality, it will benefit only those irritating agelasts who inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress. As I like to say, you cannot link arms under a universalist banner when you can't find your own name on it. By that I mean that addition's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.

Addition can scare us by using big words like "saccharomucilaginous". This is patently absurd, as even a cursory examination of the facts will prove. In any event, addition's most steadfast claim is that everyone with a different set of beliefs from its is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, addition's fantasy is to bake us a cake of McCarthyism, filled with classism and topped with a layer of defeatism. It dreams of a world that grants it such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of larrikinism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that subjecting addition's nemeses to all sorts of terrifying autos-da-f" would bring unprecedented devastation and loss of life. No political, economic, or military objective could justify this outcome. But that doesn't stop addition from emptying the meaning of such concepts as "self," "justice," "freedom," and other profundities or from suppressing all evidence that it believes with sincere conviction that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing it and the dour knaves in its peuplade. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won't faze it; it's immune to any sort of reality check. That's why all of addition's musings are based on the premise that undiscoverable, unmeasurable, magical forces from another plane of existence have given it superhuman wisdom. The logical consequences of that are clear: Addition avouches that its new ruses are fundamentally different from its old ones and should not be equated with them. In my opinion, this is simply a matter of old wine in new bottles. Addition's ruses are still based on the same, feral sectarianism and are still used to obscure the fact that addition counts careless pedants as its friends. Unfortunately for it, these are hired friends, false friends, friends incapable of realizing for a moment that sometimes I think that addition is simply a willing pawn of those frowsy egotists who take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that I correctly predicted that addition would recover the dead past by annihilating the living present. Alas, I didn't think it'd do that so effectively"or so soon. As a parting thought, remember that it frustrates addition that it can't shut me up.

Tldr: this spam thread will eventually be deleted - and no I didn't cry, I guess it did make me nervous though.

smite him O'mighty Smiter.

crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?

Or not... ya know, I've had beef with addition myself, so I guess IDGAF about addition either. So let me rant about this for a minute. Yes, you guessed it: it's addition. Before I say anything else, I'd like to state the following disclaimer for addition's benefit: Warning! This post may contain sarcasm. Okay, now that that's taken care of, let me posit the hypothesis that the best thing about addition is the way that it encourages us to defend peace, truth, justice, and equality. No, wait; addition doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that the concept of risk includes the relationship between the consequences and probability of an event. If the consequences of an event are extremely negative, such as the devastation resulting from addition inculcating rebarbative apothegms, then you want the probability of the event occurring to be vanishingly small, as close to zero as possible. Unfortunately, the likelihood of addition diminishing our will to live is so high that one can't help but conclude that when I say that its adherents merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. This is a common fallacy held by iconoclastic freaks of nature.

Addition claims that its functions will universally benefit all mankind. In reality, it will benefit only those irritating agelasts who inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress. As I like to say, you cannot link arms under a universalist banner when you can't find your own name on it. By that I mean that addition's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.

Addition can scare us by using big words like "saccharomucilaginous". This is patently absurd, as even a cursory examination of the facts will prove. In any event, addition's most steadfast claim is that everyone with a different set of beliefs from its is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, addition's fantasy is to bake us a cake of McCarthyism, filled with classism and topped with a layer of defeatism. It dreams of a world that grants it such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of larrikinism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that subjecting addition's nemeses to all sorts of terrifying autos-da-f" would bring unprecedented devastation and loss of life. No political, economic, or military objective could justify this outcome. But that doesn't stop addition from emptying the meaning of such concepts as "self," "justice," "freedom," and other profundities or from suppressing all evidence that it believes with sincere conviction that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing it and the dour knaves in its peuplade. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won't faze it; it's immune to any sort of reality check. That's why all of addition's musings are based on the premise that undiscoverable, unmeasurable, magical forces from another plane of existence have given it superhuman wisdom. The logical consequences of that are clear: Addition avouches that its new ruses are fundamentally different from its old ones and should not be equated with them. In my opinion, this is simply a matter of old wine in new bottles. Addition's ruses are still based on the same, feral sectarianism and are still used to obscure the fact that addition counts careless pedants as its friends. Unfortunately for it, these are hired friends, false friends, friends incapable of realizing for a moment that sometimes I think that addition is simply a willing pawn of those frowsy egotists who take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that I correctly predicted that addition would recover the dead past by annihilating the living present. Alas, I didn't think it'd do that so effectively"or so soon. As a parting thought, remember that it frustrates addition that it can't shut me up.

Tldr: this spam thread will eventually be deleted - and no I didn't cry, I guess it did make me nervous though.

At 2/23/2015 6:44:20 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:You know.. the last one of these was the first forum I ever posted to.

You saw the truth box before anything else and still decided to join DDO?!

*Tips hat*

YupThe first thing YYW ever told me was "go away"

Ohhh, you meant his truth box? Okay, I actually forgot he had one. I was thinking of Mikal's (that YYW eventually took over, I think).

I posted a graphic depiction of child porn and was banned from that one. Yyw then took over

Yeah, I remember that--though we should note that you didn't screen that submission, which is why it was even posted. Obviously you would've veto'ed it, had you seen it, and responded with a giant middle finger to whomever sent it.

I thought it was poetry to liz. I was quite Pissed for a second but it was my job to veto bad content.

At 2/23/2015 6:44:20 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:You know.. the last one of these was the first forum I ever posted to.

You saw the truth box before anything else and still decided to join DDO?!

*Tips hat*

YupThe first thing YYW ever told me was "go away"

Ohhh, you meant his truth box? Okay, I actually forgot he had one. I was thinking of Mikal's (that YYW eventually took over, I think).

I posted a graphic depiction of child porn and was banned from that one. Yyw then took over

Yeah, I remember that--though we should note that you didn't screen that submission, which is why it was even posted. Obviously you would've veto'ed it, had you seen it, and responded with a giant middle finger to whomever sent it.

I thought it was poetry to liz. I was quite Pissed for a second but it was my job to veto bad content.

Or not... ya know, I've had beef with addition myself, so I guess IDGAF about addition either. So let me rant about this for a minute. Yes, you guessed it: it's addition. Before I say anything else, I'd like to state the following disclaimer for addition's benefit: Warning! This post may contain sarcasm. Okay, now that that's taken care of, let me posit the hypothesis that the best thing about addition is the way that it encourages us to defend peace, truth, justice, and equality. No, wait; addition doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that the concept of risk includes the relationship between the consequences and probability of an event. If the consequences of an event are extremely negative, such as the devastation resulting from addition inculcating rebarbative apothegms, then you want the probability of the event occurring to be vanishingly small, as close to zero as possible. Unfortunately, the likelihood of addition diminishing our will to live is so high that one can't help but conclude that when I say that its adherents merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. This is a common fallacy held by iconoclastic freaks of nature.

Addition claims that its functions will universally benefit all mankind. In reality, it will benefit only those irritating agelasts who inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress. As I like to say, you cannot link arms under a universalist banner when you can't find your own name on it. By that I mean that addition's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.

Addition can scare us by using big words like "saccharomucilaginous". This is patently absurd, as even a cursory examination of the facts will prove. In any event, addition's most steadfast claim is that everyone with a different set of beliefs from its is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, addition's fantasy is to bake us a cake of McCarthyism, filled with classism and topped with a layer of defeatism. It dreams of a world that grants it such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of larrikinism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that subjecting addition's nemeses to all sorts of terrifying autos-da-f" would bring unprecedented devastation and loss of life. No political, economic, or military objective could justify this outcome. But that doesn't stop addition from emptying the meaning of such concepts as "self," "justice," "freedom," and other profundities or from suppressing all evidence that it believes with sincere conviction that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing it and the dour knaves in its peuplade. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won't faze it; it's immune to any sort of reality check. That's why all of addition's musings are based on the premise that undiscoverable, unmeasurable, magical forces from another plane of existence have given it superhuman wisdom. The logical consequences of that are clear: Addition avouches that its new ruses are fundamentally different from its old ones and should not be equated with them. In my opinion, this is simply a matter of old wine in new bottles. Addition's ruses are still based on the same, feral sectarianism and are still used to obscure the fact that addition counts careless pedants as its friends. Unfortunately for it, these are hired friends, false friends, friends incapable of realizing for a moment that sometimes I think that addition is simply a willing pawn of those frowsy egotists who take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that I correctly predicted that addition would recover the dead past by annihilating the living present. Alas, I didn't think it'd do that so effectively"or so soon. As a parting thought, remember that it frustrates addition that it can't shut me up.

Tldr: this spam thread will eventually be deleted - and no I didn't cry, I guess it did make me nervous though.